Erik, I'm pretty sure they mean "evil" and "good" in the sense that the victors of the war get to write history, as the cliche goes. That's not entirely true, but at least at the moment when they were deciding the fate of the Norwegians, England was able to dictate terms, and so the British view of good/evil was the one that mattered at that moment. I agree that in true moral terms, the picture is fuzzy at the very least, it's hardly WWII where true good and evil were involved. The terms in this context were very much tongue in cheek, and really meant winners and losers.
P.S. The word is properly spelled "losing," "loose" is the opposite of tight, not win. It's a common mistake, which drives me nuts, although it's obviously far more excusable in someone whose native language is not English. Most people who are native speakers make that mistake, too...
39
Erik, I'm pretty sure they mean "evil" and "good" in the sense that the victors of the war get to write history, as the cliche goes. That's not entirely true, but at least at the moment when they were deciding the fate of the Norwegians, England was able to dictate terms, and so the British view of good/evil was the one that mattered at that moment. I agree that in true moral terms, the picture is fuzzy at the very least, it's hardly WWII where true good and evil were involved. The terms in this context were very much tongue in cheek, and really meant winners and losers.
P.S. The word is properly spelled "losing," "loose" is the opposite of tight, not win. It's a common mistake, which drives me nuts, although it's obviously far more excusable in someone whose native language is not English. Most people who are native speakers make that mistake, too...